Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Pagano (ESPN)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow  Talk 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Pagano (ESPN)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete : This article has been in existence since May of 2009. It's been tagged with Refimprove since then, yet not one single reference has ever been added. It was tagged for speedy deletion in May of 2009, which was declined. It was prod'd in July of 2009, which resulted in its deletion. It was restored after a complaint was registered with the deleting admin. Yet, since that time effectively nothing has been done to the article. There's no deadline, but this article has languished in stub, unreferenced state for a long, long time. If he's truly notable, someone will feel motivated to create an article about him in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added a number of sources, which indicate that he is considered an important figure on the technical side of the sports broadcasting world. (Note: Searching is complicated by the fact that he shares his name with the new coach of the Indianapolis Colts, so that even searches for <"Chuck Pagano"+ESPN> turn up more hits for the other guy.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nominator does not advance a valid argument for deletion, AfD is not for cleanup.  Thanks to Arxiloxos for adding sourcing.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The references provided do more than enough to establish notability; the article needs cleanup, not deletion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to Arxiloxos' work, I am striking my vote. @Milowent; the point, as expressed in my statement, is one of notability. Thanks to Arxiloxos, notability is now asserted with appropriate secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.